We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Miranda: But you didn’t tell me you wanted to talk about that! (US v. Davis)

Officers have been involved in this scenario a hundred times:  You have a suspect and say, “can we talk to you?”  He asks, “what about?”  What do you have to tell him before he waives his Miranda rights to have his waiver considered voluntary, knowing and intelligent?

In United States v. Davis (Dec. 10, 2019) 2019 WL 6713394, the Unites States Supreme Court explains that Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 384  does not require law enforcement to explain the nature of the crimes under investigation for a suspect’s waiver of his rights under Miranda to be “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently” waived.  So, what do you have to tell the suspect?

In Davis, Defendant Davis was convicted of providing false statements to a licensed firearms dealer from whom he was purchasing firearms.  On the forms, Davis indicated that he was the actual buyer, but in fact Davis was acquiring the firearms for other persons.  When ATF performed search warrants at Davis’ house, agents interviewed Davis.  Prior to questioning Davis– and setting aside the issue of whether he was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda as that was not an issue before the Court– agents twice advised Davis of his Miranda rights, once by memory and again from a written card.  The only information given to Davis about the nature of their investigation was that the search warrants “related to his activities in firearms.”  Davis waived his Miranda rights and made admissions about his firearm purchases.

At trial, Davis tried to suppress his statements, first, by claiming that by failing to inform him that he was being investigated for making false statements, law enforcement failed to fully and adequately advise him of his rights under Miranda.  It is clear that Davis was fully informed of his rights– twice!  As explained above, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Miranda does not require an explanation of the investigation as part of the Miranda waiver.

Next, Davis tried to suppress his statements claiming that his waiver was not “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently” made because the failure to inform him of the charges being investigated, amounted to “trickery or deception” to persuade him to waive his privilege under the 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court reiterates that the Supreme Court has never found mere silence by law enforcement as to the subject matter of an interrogation to constitute trickery sufficient to invalidate a suspect’s waiver.  Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has previously held, and affirmed here, that a suspect’s awareness of all possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the waiver is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made.  Regardless, here where the agent told him the warrants were related to firearm activities was not misleading at all.


What does this mean for you?  You do not need to tell the suspect anything about your investigation before he waives Miranda, but if you do tell him something, best to keep it truthful and vague… as you don’t want to give rise to “trickery.”

  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau